According to State House News, Speaker DiMasi has (finally) appointed a panel to “study” the issues raised by Governor Patrick’s corporate tax loophole proposal.
DiMASI SAID TO TAP BUSINESS LOBBYISTS, CPA FOR TAX CODE PANEL
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi sent Gov. Deval Patrick his appointees to a tax code commission last Thursday, a House source said today. DiMasi, who came under criticism on a political website for allegedly stalling on picking his panelists for the group that plans to study the state’s tax structure, named Associated Industries of Massachusetts vice president Eileen McAnneny; Mass. Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer; and Kevin Long, a tax attorney and accountant from Sudbury; House Revenue Committee chairman John Binienda (D-Worcester); and House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading), according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Taxes are one of the strongest areas of disagreement between the speaker and the governor, and Patrick gave ground to anti-tax legislators by agreeing to the study group. Communications aides have been tight-lipped about the appointments, saying the Executive, House, and Senate planned a joint release. The House budget on the floor for consideration all week does not include Patrick’s request to generate $500 million per year by closing what Patrick calls “loopholes” in the state’s corporate tax code. Critics say the governor’s plan will hurt business and job creation. The idea of a commission appears to be a compromise, with Beacon Hill Democrats expressing hope that a special panel will explore the issues in play in more detail.
Pardon my cynicism, but somehow I don’t envision the panel coming out with a report in favor of closing anything loophole related. In fact, this is pretty much a solid slap in the Governor’s face from DiMasi, who clearly doesn’t think he owes the executive office any deference.
This move should wipe away any pretense that this study commission was an attempt at reaching a compromise.
Doubtless he feels like the deference is owed in the other direction. It is DiMasi, after all, and not Patrick, who occupies what has been the source of real power on Beacon Hill for more than a decade.
<
p>
Why should that change just because the impotent governor is a Democrat?
<
p>
For the legislators, defying DiMasi carries real risk, and defying the governor probably carries little or none.
<
p>
It might take some real primary challenges–of the real rather than symbolic sort–in which the vaunted grassroots is demonstrated to exist for something more than just a governor’s election–to change that dynamic.
We’ll be needing to field a candidate in DiMasi’s district.
So let me get this straight, because DiMasi or any Democratic legislator opposes one bill that the Governor has filed, Democratic voters should rise up and replace them…the only thing you will end up with is more Republicans…
It’s an entire philosophy. DiMasi thinks that the onus of taxes should be on the citizenry, I think that huge corporations ought to pay their fair share. That gap in philosophy effects everything from putting more cops on the streets to funding the goverment without robbing from future generations.
<
p>
I don’t want that kind of guy in charge, whether he’s Republican or Democrat. I want someone who’s going to fight for the people, for what’s best for everyone – and shilling for Verizon isn’t what’s best for everyone.
That’s just funny. Nice “blue-ribbon” commission. It’s an embarrassment to everyone involved.
<
p>
Couldn’t the Foregone Conclusions Committee have handled this one?
1. What is the enabling legislation for this Commission, or is there none?
<
p>
2. What is the charge and scope of this Commission?
3. How many voting members does this Commission have?
4. Who appoints the other members, and who are they?
5. Who is the chair of this Commission?
6. When is its report due?
<
p>
Answer those, and we can have an informed discussion, and not just vent online.
<
p>
Note that “Commissions” have been used now to build consensus and solve “emergencies” not always in a manner I agree with, such as Chapter 54 of the Acts of 2005 {representation of the indigent, with its vindictive components, and positive components entertwined] and Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 [the health care law].
<
p>
Both of these drew their energy from Commissions…
I don’t know about other members on the panel, and certainly don’t know if they have a predetermined outcome, but at least two of the members, Michael Widmer and Kevin Long know what is and isn’t a loophole and each of them have an undertanding of tax policy.
<
p>
It makes some sense to have people who actually understand the proposed tax increases, rather than someone who simply repeats the mantra ‘close the loophole’.
And you’re saying that Widmer isn’t a foregone conclusion? The same guy who tells us that drawing from reserves is the worst possible thing… unless any actually proposed methods of increasing revenue? Seriously?
<
p>
Informed people? Sure. And I don’t even mind a little bias. But you’d think DiMasi would at least aim for the appearance of balance.
A couple of thoughts:
<
p>
The other appointees of the commission are not mentioned; who are they? When will the commission meet, what’s the scope of review,and the report-filing deadline?
<
p>
Also, it will be curious to note if the other ten pending appointments similarly vex eury13 if they represent a particular “bias”.
Actually, I’ll admit that I didn’t realize that these appointees are not the entirety of the panel. Mea culpa. I will certainly be interested in seeing who else gets appointed. Is anyone clear on how many other appointees there will be and who will be doing the appointing?
<
p>
That being said, DiMasi could have still done better than to tap a bunch of pro-business mouthpieces.
…and I’m gonna ask Sen. Murray to appoint Barbara Anderson! THEN we’ll see some fireworks!
Why don’t the members of the house and senate ever stand up to the legislative leadership? When I think about the state legislature a sound comes to mind: “BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.” I hope that they can reach a compromise on the coporate taxes. It irks me that someone who represents a tiny district has so much power. But, again, why don’t other legislators take DiMasi on.
and I agree with your “BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA” remark